71 


$B 418 348 


2 
*' = My, Fal 


ἐν 


ἣν 
Δ ΝῊ, 
᾿ ἣν | 
τ ned ᾿ { 
"ἢ ν 


AM 


Ἐξ 


ἔπι 


> 
ἧς 


pe 


᾿ ‘ au 


ᾧ . 4 ae 


IOS OF HERODOTUS) 


> ἀνε φατο ἢ 
Fig es τ νας, 


Sr 


= 


ERMA ELOISE COLE 


ak 


χὰ 


<< 
=e 
ae 


ae 


é ; 5 Ὰ 


" 
‘ 
Pal 
ἊΣ 
> 


> 


OF IME 
UNIVERSITY 


. OF 
CALiFoRRIA 


uVeu 
Vv 
~ 
~~ 


THE TUTTLE, MOREHOUSE ἃ TAYLOR Ὁ 
3 NEW HAVEN, CONN. 
ὃ ν 


. 


: es NOTE | 


Erma E. ‘tae 


Ty 


a 


vf rater ee 
http://www. archive. org/details/samos sotherodot 


oA ah 


THE SAMOS OF HERODOTUS.* 


It is common tradition that Herodotus was for several years an 
exile on the island of Samos. Rawlinson (Introduction to Trans- 
lation of Herodotus, pp. 15 f.), however, supposes that “The transfer 
of residence to Samos is most likely a fiction. . . . His acquaintance 
with its buildings and localities is not greater than might have been 
acquired by one or two leisurely visits, and the length at which he 
treats the history may be accounted for on moral grounds.” 

It is the purpose of this paper to attempt to establish three points 
regarding Herodotus’ treatment of Samian affairs: 

1. Herodotus’ history of Samos indicates above all else direct 
influence from Samian monuments, such as the temple of Hera and 
its votive offerings, Samian architecture and Samian engineering. 
Samos is often introduced into the text where not really appropriate 
chiefly because of the historian’s interest in its monuments. This 
interest grew to thé point of absolute and unjustifiable prejudice in 
favor of Samians generally in matters of history—a prejudice most 
easily to be explained by long association with the people and the 
monuments of their achievements. 

2. Certain passages dealing with Samian political factions, by 
their very method of treatment show an intimate knowledge of 
internal affairs, best explained by residence in Samos. 

3. Samos was so much a part of Herodotus’ mental equipment 
that it became the natural object of comparison in discussing mis- 
cellaneous subjects, and many passages in Herodotus not on the 
surface derived from Samian sources show, -nevertheless, indirect 
latent Samian origin. τ | 


ἈΚ The material for this paper is drawn from a thesis, “The Samos of 
Herodotus,” presented at Yale. University in 1910 for the degree of Doctor 
of Philosophy. 


I. InFivuENcE on HeEropotus oF Samran Monuments. 


(A.) Direct Influences from Treasures in the Hera Temple and 
Elsewhere. 


Herodotus admits that the Samian narrative in Bk. III is out 
of the course of his main history of the Persian Wars by saying in 
conclusion: “I drew out the story of the Samians to a rather lengthy 
account because they have constructed the three greatest works of 
Hellenic genius” (III, 60). “He then disposes of these great works, 
the aqueduct, the mole in the harbor, and temple of Hera, in one 
brief paragraph. 

In view of the fact that Herodotus generally put much stress upon 
matters which were novel to his public (cf. tiresome engineering 
details in the description of the taking of Babylon, Bk. I, 179-80, 
191, and the entire Egyptian logos, Bk. IL), one may infer that these 
great landmarks of Samos were so familiar to his hearers that he 
felt that he needed merely to mention them as something of vast 
importance and the real goal of the Samian narrative. But it was 
not necessary to dwell upon the works themselves. Herodotus was 
eager to talk about Samos, doubtless from a personal interest in it, 
and felt that any digression, on Samos would be justifiable. The 
Athenian public had reason to feel interested in the early exploits 
of a people who not only gave Athens a scare while attempting to 
reduce Samos in 440, during the time of Pericles, but could boast 
of the greatest engineering works of the times. : 

It must be noted, however, that, while the so-called historical 
material is ostensibly regarded by Herodotus as so much bait to 
lead his hearers on, it is, nevertheless, something to be apologized for. 
The monumental aspect of Samos is the real goal, the whole state- 
ment being an endeavor to disguise his real motive, that of exploiting 
Samos as a “wonder-work” to his world. . 

Passages which show most plainly Samian influences upon the 
narrative of Herodotus are those which include stories about Samian 
monuments, especially the temple of Hera, with its inscribed tablets, 
paintings and works of art of all kinds. This was a constant source 


The Samos of Herodotus. v4 


of inspiration to him, and it is from his treatment of these that one 
gains the keynote to his interest in Samos. 


(1.) The Silver Crater. 


In his history of the Lydian kings in the first book (chapters 14, 
25, 50-51), Herodotus describes the magnificent gifts sent to the 
temple of Delphi by Gyges, Alyattes and Croesus. A detailed list 
of offerings is given and among them were two craters, one gold, 
the other silver; the gold one ultimately finding place in the treasury 
at Clazomenz, while the silver bowl was left in the temple of Delphi 
and used in the spring festival to the sun. Herodotus’ final state- 
mentis: “The people of Delphi say that it is the work of the Samian, 
Theodorus, which is believable, since it is the work of no crude 
artisan.” No artists are mentioned in connection with all the nota- 
ble gifts sent by Croesus except the Samian, Theodorus, and the 
inference is that Herodotus is impelled to mention many small offer- 
ings because of eagerness to mention the Samian crater, which would 
seem to indicate that he made his text elastic for the reference to 
the specimen of Samian art, an example of distinct influence upon 
him of Samian relics. 


(2.) The Bronze Crater. 


In Bk. I, 69-70, the story is told of how Cresus proposed an alliance 
with Sparta which was promptly snapped up by the Lacedzemonians 
because, according to Herodotus, once upon a time they had been 
favored by Creesus, who had given them outright enough gold for a 
statue, when they had no other thought than to purchase the gold. 

The Lacedemonians had made a return gift of a bronze crater, 
ornamented with figures of animals and plants on the outside around 
the brim. “But this crater,’ says Herodotus, “never reached Sar- 
dis, for causes concerning which there are two traditions. The 
Lacedemonians say that when the crater reached the Samian country 
the Samians sailed out and captured it. The Samians say that when 
the Lacedeemonians were rather tardy about bringing the crater and 
when they reached Samos, perceiving that Sardis and Croesus were 
captured, they abandoned the crater in Samos, where private citizens 
purchased it and placed it in the Hereum” (chapter 70). Herod- 
otus concludes: τάχα δὲ ἂν καὶ οἱ ἀποδόμενοι λέγοιεν ἀπικόμενοι ἐς Σπάρτην 
ὡς ἀπαιρεθείησαν ὑπὸ Σαμίων (chapter 70). Though he has made a show 


8 E. E. Cole, 


of giving in all fairness the two traditions about the crater, the last 
words show a device of the author to give the Samians the benefit of 
the doubt, hence his conjecture: “It is probable that the Lacedsx- 
monians, after selling the crater, upon coming to Sparta, would say 
that they had been robbed of it by the Samians” (chapter 70). 

The fact that Herodotus leaves the question in doubt is evidence 
of special Samian influence here. Likewise is the manner in which 
the tale has been spun out until mention of the crater could be 
made, for one naturally asks why the crater should be mentioned at 
all. The answer must be because it was a treasure of the Hereum 
which Herodotus doubtless saw and which, to his mind, furnished 
embellishment to the story of the Lydian-Spartan alliance. There 
may be a question whether the Spartans ever accepted Creesus’ pro- 
posals for reasons given, and it is doubtful whether the crater episode 
would have been mentioned had not the relic in the Hereum fired 
Herodotus’ imagination. ! 


(3.) The Temple of Samos. 


_ In Bk. II, 148 Herodotus refers to the labyrinth built by twelve 
Egyptian princes and known as one of the seven wonders of the 
world. His tribute to the labyrinth is that if a comparison were . 
made of all the walls and other great Grecian works put together, 
they would appear to have entailed less labor and expense than this 
labyrinth. “And yet,” he concludes, “the temple at Ephesus is 
worthy of fame and the one in Samos. The pyramids are compar- 
able to several works of wonder together but the labyrinth surpasses 
even the pyramids, being greater than one could describe.” The 
only saving features in the Greek showing are the temples of Ephesus 
and Samos. Mention of the latter indicates unshakeable faith in the 
greatness of Samian architecture, and that it seemed to him amply 
able to help maintain the prestige of the Greeks is testimony to the 
powerful influence of Samian monuments upon him. 


(4.) The Painting of King Darius. 


An incident in the Scythian expedition of King Darius in the 
fourth book (chapters 87-8) illustrates again the part played by 
Samian architects and artists in the narrative of Herodotus. 7 
- Darius came to inspect the bridge which had been placed over 
the Thracian Bosporus. Its builder was Mandrokles, the Samian, 


The Samos of Herodotus. 9 


and, being satisfied with the bridge, Darius rewarded its architect 
ten-fold. With a part of the money Mandrokles had a picture 
painted of the army crossing the Bosporus while King Darius sat 
on his throne reviewing the troops. The painting portraying this 
he had erected in the Samian Hereum with the inscription: “Man- 
drokles, when he had bridged the fish-abounding Bosporus, dedicated 
a monument of the crossing to Hera, winning the laurel for him- 
self and glory for the Samians, since he wrought to the pleasure of 
King Darius” (chapter 88). 

This incident took place after the Persians had acquired Samos, 
the story of which is told in Bk. IIT (139 ff.), and it is very prob- 
able that it never would have been included in the Scythian logos 
had the historian not seen the painting in the Samian temple. Fur- 
thermore, it is now a favorite theory that this Samian painting 
representing the Persian tribes crossing the bridge, furnished the 
description of nations, levied or levyable in Xerxes’ armies, cross- 
ing the Hellespont into Europe,—a description so detailed in the 
seventh book as to suggest statistical material from real records. 

The long procession of tribes in native dress, numbering about 
forty-six nations, described in the seventh book, is an example of 
the marvelous imagination and method of the writer, who put in 
all the truth he knew about the famous crossing—and then added 
some more “truth.” Forty-six nations could have comprised the 
levy had a Darius or a Xerxes so ordered, but, in view of the fact that 
the exaggerated figures of Herodotus as to the Persian forces which 
went to Greece are discredited, it is probable that the idea of the 
panorama suggested a way of making impressive the beginning of 
the great conflict, particularly when the Samian painting of an 
identical theme was at hand to prompt if variety failed.* 


/ 


* The query arises how far Samian influences find their way into the entire 
Herodotean story of the Persian war. It is instructive, at least, to see copies — 
of the “throne scene” in three other passages; Darius at the siege of Babylon, 
Bk. IIT, 155; and Xerxes at Thermopyle, Bk. VII, 211; and at Salamis, 
Bk. VIII, 90, wherein Xerxes is pictured sitting on his throne by the shore— 
a probable echo of this painting. 


10 E, E. Cole, 


(B.) Influence of Samian Relics and Samian Residence on Herodo- 
tus’ Method of Treating Historical Narrative—The Story 
of the Rise and Fall of Polycrates. 


Herodotus begins his history of Samos with the rise of the tyrant, 
Polycrates, whose control began about 533 B. C., continuing it 
through the greatest period of prosperity when Samian naval 
supremacy, art, and architecture were at their height. Certainly 
inscriptions, statues, and paintings commemorating famous men and 
-deeds of Samos gave color to his narrative, as well as the influence 
of the Hereum, itself a monument of the flourishing times of 
Polycrates. 


(1.) Amasis and Polycrates. 


A good example of the influence of Samian relics upon Herodo- 
tus’ narrative is the famous tale of Polycrates’ rise to power which 
contains a signet-ring for the dramatic element. We are informed 
with what solemnity Amasis, king of Egypt, witnessed the spec- 
tacular rise of Polycrates, conquering right and left and becoming 
famous throughout all Ionia, and with what neighborly interest he 
warned Polycrates that such unprecedented good fortune would bring 
him to grief if he did not at once rid himself of his best cherished 
possession as a charm against evil. . 

Polycrates, we are told, heeded the advice, ordered his sailors to 
row him far out on the sea, where he cast his signet-ring, expecting 
never to recover it; but, as Fate decreed, a few days afterward a 
fisherman brought a particularly fine fish to court and presented it 
to Polycrates. When the servants prepared the fish they found in 
it the signet-ring. Polycrates told Amasis the story and Amasis 
piously withdrew his alliance with Polycrates because he, as a friend, 
did not wish to witness his certain downfall—certain because for 
some occult reason he could not get rid of his own ring. 

As a diplomatic act, Amasis’ conduct is not plausible. It is more 
probable that Polyerates himself broke the treaty with Amasis because 
the successful campaign of Cambyses in Egypt was weakening the 
value of Amasis as an ally; but Herodotus does not wish the 
dramatic effect of his tale of the rise of Polycrates to be dulled by 
prosaic elements. 

Directly after this narrative Herodotus tells us that not long before 
this Polycrates offered Cambyses assistance in his campaign against 


The Samos of Herodotus. 11 


Egypt, which shows that Herodotus was aware of the true situation; 
but the ring story is too fine to discard. That the ring story is 
purely Herodotean is borne out by the fact that Diodorus (I, 95) 
connects no ring story with the breaking of the alliance. To Herodo- 
tus the ring is the all-important element, particularly since “it was 
overlaid with gold, contained a precious green stone and was the 
work of the Samian, Theodorus, son of Telekles”’ (III, 41). 

Herodotus mentions Theodorus more frequently than any other 
Samian artist, and his work was famous among the Samians. 
Pliny (N. H. 37, 3 f., 8) testifies that in his day a ring was exhibited 
in the Temple of Concord as that of Polycrates. What is more 
probable than that the ring was a famous heirloom in the family 
of Polycrates and that Herodotus saw it among other relics in the 
temple of Hera, for he tells us in Bk. III, 123-5 that at the time 
of Polycrates’ death his confidant, Meandrius, had placed the 
entire equipment of a certain part of Polycrates’ palace in the 
Hereum? Thus the ring story doubtless owes its origin to the 
relic in the Herrum, though the story of its recovery may be a 
folk-tale applied to Polyerates. Polycrates’ career gave a chance 
to point the moral that mortals must not aspire too high, an 
Aeschylean code, and the ring pointed at future disaster, forming 
the occult element needed to insure dramatic effect. 


(2.) The Lacedemonian Campaign against Samos, ὦ 


That Herodotus was powerfully influenced by Samian monuments 
is again attested by his story of the Spartans proceeding against 
‘Samos in the interests of the exiled faction. He relates: “The 
Lacedemonians made a campaign against Samos, as the Samians 
say, paying the debt for former benefits when the Samians reinforced 
them with ships against the Messenians; but the Lacedemonians 
say that they did not enter the campaign to avenge the Samians in 
their need so much as to pay them back for stealing the bowl which 
the Lacedemonians were taking to Croesus and the breastplate which 
Amasis, king of Egypt, had sent as a gift to them; since the year 
before the Samians seized the bowl they took the linen breastplate, 
with designs of animals, fashioned with gold and cotton, each cord 
very fine and containing 360 threads, all visible. Such another 
existed, but Amasis gave it as an offering to Athena at Lindus” 


(III, 47). 


toy ὃν E. E. Cole, 


There was evidently a persistent tradition about the mysterious 
way in which this bowl, intended for Cresus, came to be in the 
Samian Herzum, related by Herodotus in Bk. I, 70, with plainly 
apologetic presentation of the Samian tradition that it had been 
abandoned by the Lacedeemonians in Samos, where it was purchased 
and put in the temple. The Lacedemonian tradition is reiterated 
here without attempt to discountenance it except for the Samian 
statement that the expedition is one of assistance to them for their 
aid in the Messenian wars. . 

If one accepts the Lacedemonian tradition, it is the oligarchical, 
tyrannical faction of Samians, friends of Polycrates, which the 
Lacedemonians are opposing. If we accept the Samian tradition 
that the Lacedemonians aided them for past favors, it is the same 
Samian faction that helped in the Messenian wars and was exiled 
by Polycrates that speaks. That faction, then, had no part in stealing 
the bowl. | 

Plutarch (Mor. p. 859 6) favors the inference from the Samian 
tradition that it was not petty revenge that caused the war but hatred 
of tyranny and its favoring of oligarchies. It is a war among fac- 
tions which is disclosed by minute comparison of Herodotus’ separate 
statements, wherein the factional features familiar to Herodotus are 
not elucidated, doubtless because the ground was so familiar to him 
that he unconsciously omitted what would have clarified the subject 
to an outsider. 

Two facts are revealed by this passage. (1) Herodotus has an 
intimate knowledge of Samian “factionalism,”’ hardly to be gained 
by a casual visit. (2) Herodotus’ interest in Samian relics has 
caused him to mention the “Lacedemonian tradition” which might 
not have been cited had not the “crater” inspired the idea. Fur- 
thermore, it is not the Lacedemonian pretext, grudge for stealing 
the bowl, which is accepted by Herodotus, but the Samian explana- 
tion of reciprocity for past benefits.* 


* Compare the story (Bk. 11, chapter 55) of the Lacedemonian patriots, 
Archias and Lycopes, who were honored by the Samians,—episodes certainly 
indicating some bond between the Samian patriotic faction and the Lacede- 
monians. 

In the concluding battle between the Samians and the allies who come to 
display their “grudges” the Lacedemonians come near worsting the Samians; 
but Archias and Lycopes, according to Herodotus, were the only ones who 
pursued the Samians to a place where they could not retreat and met their 


The Samos of Herodotus. 13 


(3.) The Fall of Polycrates. 


The Herodotean story of the fall of Polycrates (III, 120-125) con- 
tains a bias in favor of the tyrant, perhaps due partly to Herodotus’ 
Samian interest and partly to his desire to depict the career of 
Polyerates as dominated by “Fate”; hence a certain amount of 
blamelessness is attributed to him which is not really verified by the 
other traditions quoted by Herodotus. 3 

According to Herodotus, Polycrates had never done any wrong to 
Orcetes, who had been put in charge of Sardis by Cyrus; but never- 
theless, Orcetes wished to get Polycrates into his power and murder 
him. Herodotus takes pains to give the reason shown in most tradi- 
tions, viz., that Orcetes had been taunted by another Persian, Mitro- 
bates, because he had not made a conquest of Samos for the king 
while Polycrates with only 15 hoplites had gained the island. Orcetes 
thus felt jealous of Polycrates because of the taunt. 

One must note that the assertion that ‘“Polycrates never had 
injured Orcetes” is open to question if we compare Diodorus (Exe. 
Vat. p. 557, X, 15, 4), who says that some Lydians, banished by 
- Orcetes, came to Samos with considerable wealth, were received kindly 
at first by Polycrates, but he afterward murdered them and took 
possession of their property. Granting that the exiles meant nothing 
to Orctes, considering the Diodorus passage: “Λυδοί τινες φεύγοντες 
τὴν Ὀροίτου τοῦ σατράπου δυνάστειαν,᾽" nevertheless it is clear that Herod- 
otus ignores any blame of Polycrates. 


death. A grandson of Archias said that the name, Samius, had been given 
his father because of his grandfather’s brave death in Samos, and that he 
especially esteemed the Samians because they had erected a tomb in his 
honor and at public expense. | 
᾿ς The episode of the. two brave Spartans indicates Spartan tradition and 
indicatés also that a greater harmony existed between Spartans and certain 
Samians than the alleged Lacedemonian purpose,—revenge against Samians for 
theft of the bowl,—shows. Plutarch (Mor. p. 860 6) emphasizes this passage 
as showing that the Spartans did not undertake the expedition for the sake 
of petty revenge, but were interested in the general principle of destroying 
oligarchy, for the sake of the faction that honored the Spartan Archias and 
Lycopes. Ζ 

This passage points to the possibility that the tradition of a Lacedemonian 
“grudge” on account of the crater was. inserted because of the impression 
the crater had made upon Herodotus and illustrates the monumental genesis 
of Herodotean-made tradition. 


14 E. E. Cole. 


Herodotus gives what he calls the “minor tradition” for the reason 
of Oreetes’ enmity, viz., that the envoy sent by Oretes asking money 
was rudely treated by Polycrates, who utterly refused to converse or 
render assistance. Orctes then sent another embassy to learn Poly- 
crates’ real schemes, which, Orcetes felt certain, were nothing less 
than to gain the naval supremacy over all Ionia and the islands. 
He informed Polycrates that he had not sufficient revenue to push 
such a plan, but that if he would gain control of all Hellas he should 
rescue Orcetes out of the clutches of Cambyses, bringing him to a 
place of safety and his treasures with him. In this way he should 
have a part of Orcetes’ resources. Let him send an envoy to make 
sure that Orceetes made bona fide promises. 

The later embassy vouches for the probability of the “minor 
tradition” being the true one. That Herodotus assigns it second 
place is in accord with his desire to paint Polycrates in a favorable 
light. It is evident, too, that Herodotus could not do without the 
“minor tradition” which really paves the way for the second embassy, 
the pith of the plot: Polycrates, who had been superior to foes in 
every crisis, must be lured to his death by no common means. He 
must be snared by treachery playing upon the weak point in his 
character, greed for gold and advancement. 

Herodotus relates that Orcetes cunningly “filled eight chests with 
stones, with gold on top, so that when Polycrates’ minister should 
come everything would be ready. Meandrius came, returned to 
Polycrates and made report and the latter set out for the treasure, 
despite the warnings of soothsayers and a dream of his daughter, 
who thought she saw her father suspended in air, washed by Zeus 
and anointed by the sun” (chapter 123 f.). However, Polycrates, 
accompanied by his retinue, sailed away to Magnesia, where he met — 
an ignoble death at the hands of Oreetes. ‘“Polycrates, as he hung 
on the cross, thus fulfilled completely his daughter’s dream, for he 
was washed by Zeus when it rained and was anointed by the sun, 
since he emitted a moisture from his body. Thus ended the good 
fortune of Polycrates, and thus had Amasis of Egypt prophesied” 
(chapter 125). 

It is questionable whether Amasis ever so prophesied, consider- 
ing how nicely the history of Polycrates fits into the moral of the 
downfall—by design of the gods—of a lofty mortal who aspires too 
high, a favorite moral of Herodotus. 


The Samos of Herodotus. 4 15 


Polyerates is a sort of fairy-tale hero who miraculously recovers 
his lost ring, subdues all his foes, but, as the dramatic beginning 
warns us, must come to a tragic end. No wonder that the “minor 
tradition” is kept in the background. No wonder that Polyerates’ 
fall, in the mind of Herodotus, is not due to censurable acts other 
than rising too high. Itis “Fate,” accomplished through the instru- 
mentality of jealous men. The chest episode is the snare, the dream 
of the daughter a forewarning, which lead to an artistic close. 

Herodotus concludes: “Except the tyrants of Syracuse there is 
not one of the other Greek tyrants to be compared with him in mag- 
nificence.”’ | 

After outlining Polycrates’ career as a warrior the quality that 
Herodotus emphasizes is magnificence, indicating that concrete things 
such as the ring, crater, chest and equipments of his hall, placed in 
the Hereeum by Meandrius and described as ἀξιοθέητον, gave the idea 
of “magnificence,” and doubtless influenced the method of treating 
Polycrates’ history; hence we have the ring story, the bowl episode, 
the breast-plate reference, the chest story. If “magnificent” is the 
historian’s final eulogy, it may be supposed that certain Samian votive 
offerings influenced his imagination more in the development of his 
Samian chapters than mere facts of history, which he later developed 
to make an excursus more palatable to his public, another instance 
of the monumental influence of Samos upon Herodotus. 

Cicero’s verdict (De Finibus, V, Sect. 92) shows a different point 
of view. Polycrates as a warrior appealed to him and his final 
estimate—At multis malis affectus. quis negat? sed ea mala virtutis 
magnitudine obruebantur—is one that might be expected of one who 
had not sojourned in Samos. 


11. Heroporvs’ Factionat PARTISANSHIP IN RECOUNTING SAMIAN 


History. 


While it is apparent that the Hereum alone may easily have 
inspired Herodotus in his story of early, independent Samos, as it 
might any mere visitor, it must be noted that his particular bias in 
favor of Samians in other matters having no connection with art 
or the Hera temple, can hardly be explained by supposing that he 
did not have the intimate and prejudiced knowledge of a resident 
of the island. For example, the part played by Samos in the Ionian 
revolt can scarcely be accorded the mild judgment given by Herodotus, 
whose unusual leniency in narrating this episode must be attributed 
to a partiality not to be found in a mere visitor to Samos. It may 
be that enthusiasm for Samian relics in part influenced the historian 
to gloss over hostile criticism of Samos in matters of history, but 
close association with Samian affairs must have also played its 
part. 


(1.) The Story of Syloson. 


According to Herodotus (III, 39, 139-149), Syloson, a brother of | 
Polycrates, who was banished from Samos at the time of Polyerates’ 
seizure of the tyranny, had so pleased Darius by the gift of a scarlet 
cloak that when he became king of Persia Darius consented to win 
back Samos for Syloson and sent an army under Otanes to recover 
Samos. | 

This is fanciful enough to rank with the story of Polycrates. 
Eduard Meyer (Gesch. des Alt., ΤΙ, 488) clarifies the king’s motive . 
thus: ‘With Otanes’ expedition the last independent state on the 
coast of Asia Minor was destroyed and the whole Ionic world, before 
so mighty and free, became subordinate to the great king,’—sub- 
ordinate perhaps through the wish of the tyrannical faction. 


(2.) Meandrius. 


Herodotus relates how Samos was in the hands of Meandrius,— 
who had received the trust from Polyecrates—Meandrius, whom 
Herodotus would have us suppose was a most worthy individual, 


The Samos of Herodotus. 17 


for he says: “It was Meeandrius’ endeavor to pursue a very just 
course, but he was given no chance to accomplish his desire” (III, 
142). Herodotus here appears to be “editing” the story as heard 
from the Samians, but may be giving a true estimate of Meandrius; 
however, it is not proven wherein Mezandrius tries to pursue a just 
course. ὰ 

The historian goes on to say (III, 142 ff.) that Meandrius 
assembled the Samians, generously offering to give over the govern- 
ment that they might have equal rights, on condition that he should 
keep six talents of Polycrates’ fortune and should be given the priest- 
hood of Zeus Liberator for the rest of his life. But Telesarchus, a 
prominent citizen, arose and denounced him, demanding that he 
should render an account of Polycrates’ funds. | 

Meandrius, now realizing that if he relinquished his place, another 
tyranny would arise, changed his plan and retired to the acropolis 
“to give an account of the funds.” The citizens were summoned 
separately to look at the accounts, but everyone that came was seized 
and put in chains. Shortly after this Meandrius became ill and 
his brother, Lycaretes, thinking he would soon get possession of the 
government, in case of his brother’s death, put to death the prison- 
ers, as Herodotus explains, “since they did not seem to care for 
freedom.” 

If we are to judge from the réle played by the Samians in the Ionian 
Revolt, the majority of Samians most decidedly “do not care for free- 
dom.” The historian’s comment here appears to be drawn from that 
story, since the account at this point hardly indicates great distaste for 
᾿ democracy simply because Mezandrius was called to account. One 
infers that the Samian faction which hated tyranny to the extent of 
fleeing to Sicily to avoid the returning tyrant, Alaces, after the capture 
of Miletus, was not particularly strong at this time, since Herodotus 
momentarily loses sight of it and carries the idea that the majority 
were on the side which “did not care for freedom.” Herodotus 
certainly appears to be following their tradition. 

The treatment of the offer of freedom accords with the Haradatean 
conception of Samian factions from the time of Polycrates to the 
end of the Persian war and indicates great familiarity with the 
struggles of the Samian patriots and the tyrannical faction. The 
query comes whether this may not be a mild prelude to an even 
milder account of Samian treachery in the Ionian Revolt. 


18 ; E. E. Cole, 


Meeandrius finally made a stand against the Persian force but 
was badly defeated and made his escape from the island by a 
secret tunnel* from the acropolis to the sea. 

Meeandrius’ brother, Charilaus, who had been shut up in a dungeon, 
took command of the allies, attacked the Persians in a lively skir- 
mish, but the Persians destroyed the Samian princes and higher 
officers, then besieged the acropolis and put to death everyone whom 
they found and depopulated the island. 


(3.) Samos in the Ionian Revolt. 


How far real bias is found in his treatment of Samians is shown 
perhaps best by Herodotus’ story of Samos in the Ionian Revolt. 
In the preliminary Persian attack upon Salamis and vicinity of 
Cyprus, the Ionians rallied with considerable force, while the 
Pheenicians aided the Persians. 

In the land and sea fight Herodotus states that “the Jonians 
proved superior to the Phenicians while the Samians were bravest 
among these” (the Ionians) (V, 112). It is satisfactory to know 
that in this encounter Σάμιοι ἠρίστευσαν, since this can hardly be said 
of them at the ensuing battle at Lade. 

This may be inserted here because of Samian source for this 
episode, or, more probably, it is used as a credit mark to Samian 
valor, that whatever may have been the cause of their desertion 
from the Greeks at Lade there shall be this much testimony to their 
valor. Herodotus does not give any detail as to how the Samians 
happened to be the bravest. His statement is conveniently indefinite. 

One must note that in the account of the battle of Lade, to begin 
with, Herodotus gives undue prominence to the Samian contingent 
of ships sent to fortify Lade. When the Ionians assembled for the 
defense Herodotus tells us that in the equipment of troops “the 
Milesians with 80 ships had the east wing; next were the Prienians, 
with 12; Myasians with 3; Teans with 17; Chians with 100; 
Erythrians with 8; Phoceans with 3; Lesbians with 70. Finally 
came the Samians, who had the west wing, with 60 ships” (VI, 8). 


* Autopsy of this specimen of engineering may have prompted this feature 
of the narrative. J. Theodore Bent (Academy 1883, 23:408) remarked on 
the skill of the Samians in tunneling and noted that the island was full of 
underground tombs and passages cut from the rock. 


The Samos of Herodotus. ~ 19 


Special criticism has been directed against the Samian number 
since the possession at this time of 60 ships is questionable, if Samos 
had been depopulated a score of years before to the extent indicated 
(IIT, 149). Macan (note on Herodotus, VI, 8) says that a Record 
of the Samian ships was in the Agora, but modifies by stating that 
only eleven ships were vouched for and that the Record could hardly 
have been inscribed and erected before the battle of Mycale, when 
Samos once more became independent. 

Considering that the entire enumeration of special contingents 
is criticized and that the struggle to restore a lost population is 
recorded in Aristotle (quoted in Suidas, s. v. Σαμίων), it is not 
Herodotus’ tale of depopulation which is the exaggerated one but 
rather this one which gives to the Samians 60 ships, not recorded 
in the monument cited later by Herodotus (VI, 14). 

Herodotus continues: ‘When the Samians learned that the Ionians 
were weakening in ardor they decided to follow the advice of aces, 
son of Syloson, who had formerly proposed, at the bidding of the 
Persians, to dissolve their alliance with the Ionians” (VI, 13). 

The “weakening in ardor” related in chapters 9, 10 and 11 of 
Book VI, consists of the refusal of the Ionians to follow a course 
of treachery planned for them by the Persian generals; for the 
Persians felt that a formidable array of ships had collected and 
hoped to win them to the Persian side by negotiating through the 
tyrants who had been deposed by Aristagoras. Chapter 10 closes: 
οἱ δὲ Ἴωνες, és τοὺς καὶ ἀπίκοντο αὗται ai ἀγγελίαι, ἀγνωμοσύνῃ τε διεχρέωντο 
καὶ οὐ προσίεντο τὴν προδοσίην + ἑωυτοῖσι δὲ ἕκαστοι ἐδόκεον μούνοισι ταῦτα τοὺς 
Πέρσας ἐξαγγέλλεσθαι. Herodotus’ use of ἀγνωμοσύνῃ is interesting. 
In his mind it is arrogance or obstinacy for the Ionians to refuse a 
chance to be restored to the old footing of holding tyrannical govern- 
ments under the Persians, but it is a case of “not desiring freedom” 
when the Samians prefer tyranny under Persian rule to democracy. 

Chapter 12 relates the attempts of Dionysius, the Phocean, to 
drill the Ionians in tactics designed to bring them out of their crisis, 
but these tactics were too taxing so that by the eighth day, according 
to Herodotus, the Ionians, ἀπαθέες ἐόντες πόνων τοιούτων, decided to 
abandon the endeavor, preferring slavery, whatever it might be, to 
the present hardships, and called the Phocean a braggart, who had 
furnished but three ships. 

Herodotus’ treatment of Ionians often borders upon contempt, and 
‘the history of the Samians in the Ionian revolt leads to a surmise 


20 : E. E. Cole, 


that it has been caused fully as much by a desire to shield the 
Samians in that campaign as by his contempt for Hecatzus, the 
Milesian logographer whose materials he may be employing, a theory 
often advanced. 7 

Herodotus continues: “For the Samians saw that there was lack 
of system and purpose in the Ionian camp and, too, they thought 
it pretty clear that they could not weaken the king’s cause because 
they knew that whenever the present army should be destroyed 
another five times its size would take its place” (chapter 13). The 
Samians should have considered this possibility sometime before this, 
but Herodotus placidly goes on: “With this pretext, when they saw 
that the Ionians were not apt to be valorous they thought best to 
preserve their temples and private property” (zbid.). 

The reward for allegiance to Persia is kept well in mind by thé 
Samians, who, according to the reasoning of chapter 10, could they 
have had their way, would have accepted and had all Ionia accept 
without more ado the proposals of the great king. This indicates 
rather clearly that ἀγνωμοσύνῃ is a Samian conception of the situation, 
too, not solely Herodotean. 

The narrative continues: A¥aces, who advised this, was the son 
of Syloson, son of A®aces, and while tyrannos of Samos had been 
deprived of his office by the Milesian Aristagoras, as had happened 
to all other tyrants in Ionia. When the Phenicians sailed up for 
the attack the Ionians also brought their ships into line. But as 
they approached and the battle began, from that moment it cannot 
be said truly* which of the Ionians were cowards or courageous in 
the naval battle that followed for they accuse one another; but it is 
said [Aé€yera, giving a chance for doubt] that the Samians, according 
to agreement with AXaces, lifted sail and abandoned their position, 
departing for Samos—with the exception of eleven ships whose trier- 
archs remained and fought, disobeying the strategos. The Samian 
assembly, because of this exploit, had a stele erected to them as 
courageous men, inscribed with the names of their fathers and their 
stele is in the market place” (chapter 14). 

Here Herodotus is compelled to show the evidence, which, by its 
very nature—tribute to eleven loyal trierarchs—convicts the others, 


* Herodotus avoids responsibility for the truth of the common tradition 
that the Samians showed treachery and tries to indicate that he has not 
safe evidence against them. ' 


The Samos of Herodotus. 21 


‘Perhaps the historian wished to show that there was a faction that 
appreciated those who did “stay by the ship.” 

Herodotus relates that when the Lesbians saw the conduct of those 
next to them, they did as the Samians had done, and so “the majority 
of the Ionians, too, acted in the very same way” (chapter 14). 
Herodotus supposes, no doubt, that such a statement points out that 
the Samians were not worse than the rest of the Ionians. ὡς δὲ καὶ of 
πλεῦνες TOV Ἰώνων ἐποίευν τὰ αὐτὰ TavTa—indicates nothing as to time, 
which might be synchronous with the act of Samians. 

Pretty clear proof, however, that the Samians could not be exon- 
erated from the general tradition of treachery comes from Herodotus 
himself (Bk. VI, chapter 25), in which he states that the Samians 
alone were exempt from the destruction of their cities and temples. 
That the Samians could preserve their temples by joining the Persian 
cause may have been justification for their conduct in the mind of 
Herodotus, though he does not say so, but seeks, rather, to pretend 
the tradition obscure which indicates-Samian treachery. Thus, as 
a whole, the story of the Ionian Revolt shows Herodotus in his 
worst attack of partiality in dealing with the Samians. 


" 
(4.) The Samians at Mycale. 


A trifle of the same tenor which characterized the story of the 
Ionian Revolt is -repeated in the narrative of the Samian rdéle in 
the campaign of Mycale (IX, 90 ff.). 

While the Greek fleet was under command of the Lacedemonian 
Leutychides at Delos, messengers sent by Samians without the knowl- 
edge of the tyrant or the Persians, came begging the Ionians to 
revolt from the Persians, on the ground that the Persian ships were 
not very seaworthy and could not contend with the Greeks. They 
promised to stay as hostages if the Greeks suspected them of getting 
their support with treacherous purpose. The Samians were received 
into the alliance and gave pledges of allegiance to the Hellenes. 

The Greeks accordingly brought their ships from Delos to Samos, 
where the Persian fleet had been wintering. The Persians at once 
deprived the Samians of their arms, suspecting them to be shaping 
the policy of the Greeks, and because the Samians shortly before 
had set free and furnished with supplies the Athenian captives taken 
by Xerxes’ soldiers in Attica, to the number of 500. 


22 EL. H. Cole, 


Herodotus tells us that those Samians who had entered the Persian 
ranks and been deprived of arms, seeing from the start that the 
outcome was doubtful, did all they could to aid the Hellenes. 

It must be noted that while Herodotus practically admits a well 
known reputation for Samian treachery in the speech of the Samian 
ambassadors, he is anxious to emphasize the fact that their patriotic 
policy induced the campaign of Mycale, probably the work of the 
democratic faction. Now that the pendulum is swinging the other 
way, Herodotus is eager to point out that “the Samians did all 
they could for the Greeks” (chapter 103), evidently trying to mitigate 
the treachery at Lade. The vagueness of statement is suspicious and 
may well be Samian influence attempting to get into the good graces 
of history. 

Since the Herodotean version of the campaign before Myeale 
altogether magnifies that campaign’s importance, likewise Athenian 
prowess, in the series of battles in the Persian war, the attitude of 
the Samians here may have been emphasized by the historian simply 
to vindicate them, a motive as probable in his treatment of the 
campaign of Mycale as his desire to carry the fame of Athenian 
valor farther than the battle of Plateea. . 

Herodotus’ bias in favor of Samos seems to be the prejudice one 
might expect of a native of the island. How are we to account for 
it if he did not feel a certain fellowship with its residents, a fellow- 
ship best explained by the supposition that he himself for a time 
entered into their life and customs? 


Ill. Heroporvs’ Ust or Miscertangovus Facts anp TRADITIONS 
ABOUT. SAMOS. 


(A.) In Comparisons. (1.) Geography. 


Herodotus’ interest in stray facts about Samos is revealed by 
bits of miscellany scattered through his books, for, in dealing with 
subjects which furnish him a natural-means of comparison, Samos 
is cited as familiar ground and almost as “second nature”; as in 
Bk. I, 148, Samos is mentioned to identify the locality of Mycale. 


(2.) Dialect. 


As to the variations in the Ionian dialects (Bk. I, 142), Herodotus 
notes that “Miletus, Myus and Priene have the same dialect. Dif- 
fering from these in dialect are the Lydian cities, Ephesus, Colophon, 
Lebedos, Teos, Clazomenz, Phocea. There are three other Ionian 
cities, one in Chios, another in Erythre, which have the same dia- 
lect, but the city in Samos differs again and the Samians are the 
only ones to have a dialect by themselves.” This statement is not 
made elsewhere. 


(3.) Measure. 


In a discussion about Egyptian cornfields, Bk. II, 168, Herodotus 
states that “the Egyptian cornfield is 100 cubits on each side, and 
the Egyptian chances to be the same as the Samian ecubit.” Herodo- 
tus seems somewhat unconscious here of the probability that the 
Samian cubit may not be more familiar to the Athenian or Pelopon- 
nesian Greek than the Egyptian cubit, and the manner of stating 
a well known fact shows to what extent Herodotus had become satu- 
rated with the life of Samos from which he involuntarily draws for 
material. | ; 


(4.) Colonies. 


Various statements, incidental and otherwise, show that the 
Samians were enterprising as traders and eager to colonize. In the 
majority of cases which treat of their travels abroad references are 
made to temples and monuments which they erected wherever they 


24 EH. E. Cole, 


went or to dedications in the Samian Hereum as memorials to their 
enterprises. 

Wherever Samos sent representatives due credit is given and in 
most cases the fact of a dedicatory offering being put in the Hereum 
must have suggested to Herodotus the farther development and nar- 
rative of their commercial history, thus inducing in some instances 
a more extended story than that which concerned merely the monu- 
ments themselves. 

(a.) Oasis. 

A peculiar case of giving credit to Samian colonization where credit 
was not due arises in Bk. III, 26, in the story of Cambyses’ expedi- 
tion into Egypt about 525 B. C. Herodotus relates the failure of 
the expedition against the Ethiopians through starvation; but “those 
who had not been sent out against the people of Ammon, when they 
had set out from Thebes with their guides, appeared at the city pf 
Oasis, which the Samians possess,—those Samians said to be of the 
tribe of Aischrione,—and this is seven days’ journey from Thebes, 
through the desert, and the place in the Greek language is called the 
island of the blest. When he made a journey from this Oasis 
through the desert against the Ammonites and they were about half 
way between them and Oasis, a great wind arose that carried ridges 
of sand to heap on them and they perished. This is the story of 
the Ammonites concerning the army.” 

Herodotus’ treatment of Oasis as a Samian colony seems clearly 
a fabrication, judging from the phrase “those said to be of the tribe 
of Atschrione” (no such Samian tribe elsewhere being vouched for) 
and from the use of Oasis as a proper name, which was contrary 
to antique Egyptian usage. Furthermore the shifting of the respon- 
sibility of the whole story upon the shoulders of the Ammonites is 
suspicious. The only statement for which Herodotus appears to be 
responsible is that the Samians possessed Oasis at this time, of which 
scholars think there is no proof.* 


* Panofka (Res Samiorum, page 24) is the only writer to credit Oasis as a 
Samian colony. He explains that the Samians sought and won the favor 
of the Cyreneans after the 37th Olympiad and thus established the city Oasis — 
because of the natural products in which it excelled. In the 40th Olympiad 
the Samians probably went there and in the 63rd Olympiad the soldiers of 
Cambyses met them as inhabitants of this city. According to Stein (note on 
III, 26) this Oasis is located near ancient Thebes and the city of ne same name 
is in the vicinity of the capital, El Khargeh. 


The Samos of Herodotus. 25 


(b.) Naucratis. 


The Egyptian “logos” which occupies Bk. II entire indicates in 
various ways resemblances between Greece and Egypt. Egypt as a 
rendezvous for the Greek trader receives emphasis. In chapter 178 
the connection between Greeks and the settlements in Egypt includes 
the Samians only as a part of the general movement of the merchant 
class westward, since they are not singled out for special mention and 
might have been introduced in any case in the story of Naucratis, 
which is the nucleus of the narrative. 

Herodotus’ treatment of Naucratis is impartial but important as 
showing Samian tradition, since he is the only literary authority 
for Samian occupation and his statement about Samos as well as 
Miletus is corroborated by the work of excavation in Egypt. 

Herodotus states: “Among other favors shown some of the Greeks, 
Amasis, while king of Egypt, gave those who came to Egypt the 
city of Naucratis to inhabit and to those navigators who did not 
wish to dwell there he gave places where they might establish altars 
and precincts for their gods. The greatest, richest and most famous 
τέμενος was called the Hellenion and was established together by the 
Ionian cities, Chios, Teos, Phocea, Clazomenz; the Dorian cities 
Rhodes, Cnidus, Halicarnassus and Phaselis, and the city of the 
Mytilenians which was the only Holic member. This was their pre- 
cinct, while the other cities furnished a protectorate for the Empo- 
rium, and whatever other cities had any share in it (the protectorate) 
did so without any claim or right. Besides this the Aginetans estab- 
lished a temenos for Zeus, the Samians another for Hera, and the 
Milesians one for Apollo.” 

W.-M. Flinders Petrie and Ernest Gardner in 1885-6 identified the 
city, Naucratis, with the mound, Nebireh, to the west of the Canobic 
branch of the Nile and clearly identified the Great Hellenion, their 
discovery harmonizing with the statements of Pliny and Herodotus. 
(Naukratis, p. 1 ff.) 

Reporting on final excavations at Naucratis, D. G. Hogarth, 
H. L. Lorimer and C. C. Edgar (Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1905) 
note that the north half of the city alone belonged to Greeks and 
that the. Hellenion is to be identified with an enclosed precinct 
here. The painted pottery all found in this northern part proves 
the presence of Milesians, Samians and probably Clazomenian 
elements in the population. 


26 E. E. Cole, 


During the excavations superintended by Petrie and Gardner in 
1884-5-6 the temple of Apollo erected by Milesians was clearly iden- 
tified. In the second season of 1885-6 the leading discoveries were 
the temene of the Samian Hera and Aphrodite. There is nothing 
in Herodotus’ narrative here to indicate that Milesians predominated 
more than others in the settling of Naucratis, although it is the 
opinion of many that the Milesians took the leading part. Eduard 
Meyer (II, 417) maintains this to be the impression gained later 
and that the Milesians had acquired firm foothold since Psammetichus 
I. He discredits the idea that Strabo (XVII, p. 801), who narrates 
the founding of the city by Milesians after a naval battle against 
Inarus, should be taken into consideration as against the Herodotean 
version. 

The Samians in the Herodotean version are equally prominent 
with the Milesians and Aginetans in establishing temene, but, as 
said above, the passage favors neither Samians nor Milesians to the 
exclusion of others, the dominant feature being merely that the 
Greeks generally were given Naucratis as a trading-post. Herodotus’ 
partiality to monuments and architecture would perhaps account for 
this feature of the paragraph. 

In 1885-6 excavations at Naucratis discovered a vase dedicated to 
Aphrodite by Rhecus, probably the famous Samian architect, who, 
it is supposed, sindied Egyptian models. 

A note on Samos (American 1 Archeology, 1907, Vol. XI, p. 
84), referring to unpublished sculptures, includes one of aces, 
father of Polycrates, the tyrant. It is asserted that “this statue 
and the Hera of Samos by comparison with earlier Ionic work show 
the effect of Egyptian art on Milesian artists, after the founding of 
Naucratis.” 

Whether emphasis may be put on the singling out of Milesian 
artists here is a question, but it is natural to suppose from the 
phraseology that these statues on Samian subjects were the work of 
Milesian artists and that Milesian art was the chief art in vogue 
immediately after settlement of Naucratis, or that Naucratis was 
more or less in the hands of Milesian colonists. At any rate Samos 
has not the first claim to connection with Naucratis, nor does Herodo- 
tus claim it. 

Archeology and Herodotus alone vouch for the connection of Sami- 
ans with the story of Naucratis; but archeology, as well as Herodo- 
tus, vouches too for the Milesian share in Naucratis. The discovery 


The Samos of Herodotus. | 27 


of statuary of Milesian artists at Naucratis, showing Egyptian influ- 
ence, scores for Miletus. Miletus is supported by Pliny and Strabo. 
‘The discovery of the Milesian temple to Apollo scores also for Miletus. 

The excavations at Naucratis in 1885-6, showing a vase of Rhecus 
dedicated to Aphrodite (Rhecus a student of Egyptian models) indi- 
cates Egyptian influence upon Samos and consequent connection. 
The discovery of the temple of Hera proves Samian colonial elements, 
while painted pottery, found in the northern part, scores for ‘“Mile- 
sian, Samian, and probably Clazomenian elements in the population.” 

Herodotus puts no emphasis on Milesian leadership; in fact, adds 
the Milesians last in the list of foreigners who flocked to Naucratis; 
but the order of the phraseology may be accidental, since the temple 
to Zeus, by special prominence, is mentioned first, Hera comes next, 
and Apollo last, as perhaps it should be in a catalogue of heavenly 
bodies. Hence in the order given are mentioned Avginetans, Samians, 
Milesians. However, Herodotus gives Samos its proper place in the 
enterprise and archzxology has proved his statement. 


(B.) Latent Samian Influences. 


Many elements which enter the narrative of Herodotus often owe 
their adoption into the story to influence from a Samian quarter | 
while the story itself may not indicate that such elements are due 
to a Samian source or tradition. Paragraphs which emanate from 
themes about Samian colonies or places where Samians have dwelt, 
such as Perinthos, Crete, Naucratis, etc., very probably owe their 
existence to the fact of Samian connection, although on the surface 
the connection may not be apparent. 


- (1.) Rhodopis. 


In his recital of the story of the Greek courtesan, Rhodopis (Bk. 
II. 134-135), Herodotus speaks with an air of authority, as one abso- 
lutely sure of his ground, while he calls into question the statements 
of those who follow a different tradition. He has brought the dis- 
cussion of Egyptian kings to the reign of Mycerinos, son of Cheops. 
“Mycerinos,” he says, “left a pyramid which some of the Greeks 
say was that of his concubine, Rhodopis, but they are mistaken. 
They do not even appear to know who Rhodopis was. She flourished 
in the time of Amasis but not in the time of this king (Mycerinos) 
for Rhodopis lived many years after these kings who erected the pyra- 


28  -#B.E. Cole, 


mids. She was a Thracian in race, a slave of Iadmon, son of Hephes- 
topolis, who was a Samian, and fellow slave of Aisop, the fable 
writer.” 

It is thought that the Greeks in Egypt are not so responsible for 
the idea that Rhodopis built a pyramid as the Egyptian, Manetho, 
who, in his account of the dynasties, confused the woman connected 
with the pyramid with Nitokris. According to his version, Nitokris 
possessed the ruddy complexion by which Rhodopis was known and 
erected the third pyramid, ruling in the sixth dynasty. 

Herodotus’ contention is that even if it could be assumed that a 
woman was connected with a pyramid the woman was not Rhodopis, 
about whom he is sure of his tradition, viz., Samian. It is held that 
Herodotus is correct in saying that the pyramid was not erected for 
a woman, and that Manetho, besides confusing Nitokris with the 
wrong dynasty, incorrectly attributed the pyramid to a woman, in 
accordance with a popular story, and further identified Nitokris 
with the woman of the pyramid and Rhodopis. 

Herodotus states it as a fact that Rhodopis came to Egypt under 
the protection of Xanthos, the Samian, and was afterward set free 
by the Mytilenian, Charaxos, brother of Sappho, the poetess. Thus 

Rhodopis obtained her freedom and remained in Egypt. Becoming 
' particularly attractive, she acquired great wealth for one in her sta- 
tion, but not to the extent of having such a pyramid erected. 

Nothing is more confidently stated than this, and no hint need be 
given that it is the statement of one who is sure. It might be natural 
to question how it happened that Herodotus attributed the error 
about Rhodopis to Greeks rather than to a native historian. Herodo- 


* According to Hall (Jl. Hellenic Studies, 1904), the pyramid was recorded 
as built by king Menkaura (Mycerinos) of the fourth dynasty. He supposes 
that Manetho found two names, Menkara and Niterkara, probably two suc- 
cessive kings. Taking them for names of one person and confusing the first 
with Menkaura, the builder of the pyramid, and the second with Queen 
Nitokris, heroine of Herodotus’ tale in Bk. II, 100, Manetho jumped at the 
conclusion that Menkara Nitokris was the woman of the pyramid and 
courtesan Rhodopis. Neterkara and Menkara II being two separate kings, 
the twelve years’ reign which Manetho ascribes to Nitokris are doubtless the 
total of the two reigns. Manetho identified Nirwxpis with Menkara, a com- 
bination of two names. Νέτωκρις being Greek and first occurring in Herodotus, 
Manetho doubtless took the name from Herodotus, as Nitakerti was not of 
the usual type of the times and probably identified it with Neterkara of the 
sixth dynasty. . ie τ 


The Samos of Herodotus. 29 


tus himself was leaning on a very substantial tradition. He might 
expect Greeks from Samos who were in Naucratis or other points in 
Egypt to lean on the same tradition. However, he regards his ver- 
sion as the true one, for it came from Samos. 


(2.) Sataspes. 


In a geographical note of Bk. IV, chapters 42-3 furnish an example 
of forcing an anecdote into a context which hardly requires it. The 
¢ircumnavigation of Libya is the pith of the discussion in 42. The 
experience of the Phenicians is recalled and the point in their nar- 
rative discredited by Herodotus is the fact that when they sailed 
around Libya toward the North they had the’ sun on their right. 
“Thus,” he concludes their exploit, “Libya was first known to be 
circumnavigable; and then the Carthaginians said that they were 
the next to circumnavigate it. When Sataspes, son of Teaspes, the 
Achemenian, did not circumnavigate Libya, although sent for this 
purpose, because he feared the length of the voyage and the desert, 
he came back without accomplishing the feat his mother had enjoined 
on him,” etce., ete. 

Here follows the private history of Sataspes, who was required 
to circumnavigate Libya as a punishment for misdeeds. Failing in 
this he was obliged to return and receive the punishment first pre- 
scribed by Xerxes,—crucifixion. As a footnote Herodotus adds: 
τούτου δὲ τοῦ ΣΞατάσπεος εὐνοῦχος ἀπέδρη ἐς Σάμον, ἐπείτε ἐπύθετο τάχιστα 
τὸν δεσπότεα τετελευτηκότα, ἔχων χρήματα μεγάλα, τὰ Σάμιος ἀνὴρ κατέσχε, 
τοῦ ἐπιστάμενος τὸ οὔνομα ἑκὼν ἐπιλήθομαι. 

The statement that the eunuch of this Sataspes fled to Samos 
when he learned that his master was dead follows naturally enough 
and is as much in order as any part of the story. This in itself 
hardly indicates Samian influence, but rather source. The conclu- 
sion that the wealth taken by the eunuch had been seized by a cer- 
tain Samian whom Herodotus will not betray shows intimacy with 
the history of different men of Samos, ἑκὼν ἐπιλήθομαι, revealing a 
desire to shield him. The exile of the eunuch made Sataspes’ story 
known to Herodotus, hence the source for the story is clear. 


(3.) Salmoxis and Pythagoras. 


Perhaps the most interesting case of latent Samian influence upon 
Herodotus is that of chapters 94-5-6 in Bk. IV. Darius is engaged 


30 E. E. Cole, 


in the Scythian expedition and has, according to Herodotean tradi- 
tion, left a great heap of rocks as a memorial of the army. Before 
arriving at the Danube he conquered the Gete, “the immortals,” 
whom Herodotus designates as the most brave and just of the 
Thracians. By a rather abrupt digression he traces the Thracian 
saga of Salmoxis, the god of the Thracians, to whom messages are 
sent by those chosen to go. 

The one selected by lot is tossed into the air and received upon 
three javelins and if pierced to death by them is deemed fit to go 
to Salmoxis with their prayers; if he is not kilied in the process 
he is deemed wicked and another is chosen. Salmoxis is the only 
Thracian god and they believe that no other god exists but theirs. 
Here follows an interesting addition to the story of Salmoxis (chapter 
95)’: 

ὡς δὲ ἐγὼ πυνθάνομαι τῶν τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον οἰκεόντων Ἑλλήνων καὶ Πόντον, 
τὸν Σάλμοξιν τοῦτον ἐόντα ἄνθρωπον δουλεῦσαι ἐν Σάμῳ, δουλεῦσαι δὲ Πυθαγόρῃ 
τῷ Μνησάρχου. ἐνθεῦτεν δὲ αὐτὸν γενόμενον ἐλεύθερον χρήματα κτήσασθαι 
μεγάλα, κτησάμενον δὲ ἀπελθεῖν ἐς τὴν ἑωυτοῦ. ἅτε δὲ κακοβίων τε ἐόντων 
τῶν Θρηίκων καὶ ὑπαφρονεστέρων τὸν Σάλμοξιν τοῦτον ἐπιστάμενον δίαιτάν τε 
᾿Ιάδα καὶ ἤθεα βαθύτερα ἢ κατὰ Θρήικας, οἷα Ἕλλησί τε ὁμιλήσαντα καὶ 
᾿Ἑλλήνων οὐ τῷ ἀσθενεστάτῳ σοφιστῇ ἸΤυθαγόρῃ κατασκευάσασθαι ἀνδρεῶνα, ἐς 
τὸν πανδοκεύοντα τῶν ἀστῶν τοὺς πρώτους καὶ εὐωχέοντα ἀναδιδάσκειν ὡς οὔτε 
αὐτὸς οὔτε οἱ συμπόται αὐτοῦ οὔτε οἱ Ex τούτων αἰεὶ γινόμενοι ἀποθανέονται, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἥξουσι ἐς χῶρον τοῦτον ἵνα αἰεὶ περιεόντες ἕξουσι τὰ πάντα ἀγαθά. 

Salmoxis then digs an underground residence and lives out of 
the sight of the Thracians for three years, while they mourn him 
as dead. In the fourth year he appears again to the Thracians. 
Herodotus says “As for this living underground, I am neutral; but 
I think Salmoxis lived several years before Pythagoras.” 

τῶν τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον οἰκεόντων is a little indefinite as to source. 
“Those who dwell along the Euxine and the Hellespont” can hardly 
be sued for libel. However, if one remembers that Perinthus on the 
European coast of Thrace was a Samian settlement and more than 
likely was responsible for any story connecting Salmoxis and Samos, 
the statement, though indefinite, is fairly good evidence for source. 

The reference to Pythagoras is stated as a part of the tradition 
derived from those Greeks on the Hellespont and Euxine, but some 
see a vein of personal criticism and almost of irony in this and what 
follows. A comparison of this passage with one in Bk. ΤΙ, 198 leads 
to the theory that Herodotus is not in sympathy with the cult or 


The Samos of Herodotus. } 31 


the belief of the Samian Pythagoras, or at least does not care to 
credit him with founding the school of belief assigned to him. Bk. 
11, 123 reads: 

πρῶτοι δὲ καὶ τόνδε τὸν λόγον Αἰγύπτιοι εἰσὶ οί ES ὡς ἀνθρώπου ψυχὴ 
ἀθάνατος ἐστί, τοῦ σώματος δὲ καταφθίνοντος ἐς ἄλλο ζῷον αἰεὶ γινόμενον ἐσδύεται, 
ἐπεὰν δὲ πάντα περιέλθῃ τὰ χερσαῖα καὶ τὰ θαλάσσια καὶ τὰ πετεινά, αὖτις ἐς 
ἀνθρώπου σῶμα γινόμενον ἐσδύνει " τὴν περιήλυσιν δὲ αὐτῇ γίνεσθαι ἐν τρισχι- 
Alot ἔτεσι. τούτῳ τῷ λόγῳ εἰσὶ οἱ “EXAjvwv ἐχρήσαντο, οἱ μὲν πρότερον ot δὲ 
ὕστερον, ὡς ἰδίῳ ἑωυτῶν ἐόντι - τῶν ἐγὼ εἰδὼς τὰ οὐνόματα οὐ γράφω. 

“Early writers” referred to are Pythagoras, the student, and Phere- 
eydes, of the island of Syros, his teacher, to whom Cicero attributes 
the first teaching of immortality. The later teachers, according to 
the usual interpretation, include Empedocles. 

If Herodotus received the tradition of the connection of the myth- 
ical Salmoxis with a real man, a pupil of Pythagoras in Samos, 
he is unwilling to show plainly that it is from a Samian source. 
Whether the sequel comes from Samians in the island-or in Perin- 
thus may not be determined, but the historian seems to avoid even 
the appearance of having used a Samian source, and disagrees with 
the sequel besides, preferring to give Pythagoras second place chro- 
nologically and similar place as a transmigrator of souls, if the 
reference in Bk. II, 123, is indication of his true feeling. In Bk. 
ΤΥ perhaps he prefers to disguise his source, being Samian, and one 
which launches a tradition about which he is contemptuous. 

The fact that Cherilus, a Samian poet, on the authority of Dioge- 
nes Laertius, referred to Thales as the first to teach that the soul is 
immortal, indicates a tendency in Greek tradition to credit some 
Greek with this theory. At any rate the Samian colony on the 
Hellespont is a possible source for this tale. 


(4.) Miltiades at the Bridge. 


The annals of the Philaid family, tending to emphasize the 
patriotism or prowess of Miltiades, give clue to the Athenian source 
for most of chapter 137 of Bk. IV, but Samian records as well must 
be responsible for part of the narrative. It is the famous episode 
of the Ionians being urged by the Scythians to destroy the bridge 
of Darius before he returned from his expedition and gain their free- 
dom from Persian tyranny. In the deliberations of the Ionians Mil- 
tiades, an Athenian, urged that they follow the suggestions of the 
Scythians and free Ionia; but Histizus, the Milesian, opposed this 


30 E. E. Cole, 


in the Scythian expedition and has, according to Herodotean tradi- 
tion, left a great heap of rocks as a memorial of the army. Before 
arriving at the Danube he conquered the Gete, “the immortals,” 
whom Herodotus designates as the most brave and just of the 
Thracians. By a rather abrupt digression he traces the Thracian 
saga of Salmoxis, the god of the Thracians, to whom messages are 
sent by those chosen to go. 

The one selected by lot is tossed into the air and received upon 
three javelins and if pierced to death by them is deemed fit to go 
to Salmoxis with their prayers; if he is not kilied in the process 
he is deemed wicked and another is chosen. Salmoxis is the only 
Thracian god and they believe that no other god exists but theirs. 
Here follows an interesting addition to the story of Salmoxis (chapter 
95): 

ὡς δὲ ἐγὼ πυνθάνομαι τῶν τὸν ᾿ὥΠλλήσποντον οἰκεόντων Ἑλλήνων καὶ Πόντον, 
τὸν Σάλμοξιν τοῦτον ἐόντα ἄνθρωπον δουλεῦσαι ἐν Σάμῳ, δουλεῦσαι δὲ Πυθαγόρῃ 
τῷ Μνησάρχου. ἐνθεῦτεν δὲ αὐτὸν γενόμενον ἐλεύθερον χρήματα κτήσασθαι 
μεγάλα, κτησάμενον δὲ ἀπελθεῖν ἐς τὴν ἑωυτοῦ. ἅτε δὲ κακοβίων τε ἐόντων 
τῶν Θρηίκων καὶ ὑπαφρονεστέρων τὸν Σάλμοξιν τοῦτον ἐπιστάμενον δίαιτάν τε 
Ιάδα καὶ ἤθεα βαθύτερα ἢ κατὰ Θρήικας, οἷα Ἕλλησί τε ὁμιλήσαντα καὶ 
᾿Ἑλλήνων οὐ τῷ ἀσθενεστάτῳ σοφιστῇ ἸΠυθαγόρῃ κατασκευάσασθαι ἀνδρεῶνα, ἐς 
τὸν πανδοκεύοντα τῶν ἀστῶν τοὺς πρώτους καὶ εὐωχέοντα ἀναδιδάσκειν ὡς οὔτε 
αὐτὸς οὔτε οἱ συμπόται αὐτοῦ οὔτε οἱ ἑκ τούτων αἰεὶ γινόμενοι ἀποθανέονται, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἥξουσι ἐς χῶρον τοῦτον ἵνα αἰεὶ περιεόντες ἕξουσι τὰ πάντα ἀγαθά. 

Salmoxis then digs an underground residence and lives out of 
the sight of the Thracians for three years, while they mourn him 
as dead. In the fourth year he appears again to the Thracians. 
Herodotus says “As for this living underground, I am neutral; but 
I think Salmoxis lived several years before Pythagoras.” 

τῶν τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον οἰκεόντων is a little indefinite as to source. 
“Those who dwell along the Euxine and the Hellespont” can hardly 
be sued for libel. However, if one remembers that Perinthus on the 
European coast of Thrace was a Samian settlement and more than 
likely was responsible for any story connecting Salmoxis and Samos, 
the statement, though indefinite, is fairly good evidence for source. © 

The reference to Pythagoras is stated as a part of the tradition 
derived from those Greeks on the Hellespont and Euxine, but some 
see a vein of personal criticism and almost of irony in this and what 
follows. A comparison of this passage with one in Bk. II, 123 leads 
to the theory that Herodotus is not in sympathy with the cult or 


“The Samos of Herodotus. 31 


the belief of the Samian Pythagoras, or at least does not care to 
credit him with founding the school of belief assigned to him: Bk. 
IT, 123 reads: 

πρῶτοι δὲ καὶ τόνδε τὸν λόγον Αἰγύπτιοι εἰσὶ οί εἰπόντες, ὡς ἀνθρώπου ψυχὴ 
ἀθάνατος ἐστί, τοῦ σώματος δὲ καταφθίνοντος ἐς ἄλλο ζῷον αἰεὶ γινόμενον ἐσδύεται, 
ἐπεὰν δὲ πάντα περιέλθῃ τὰ χερσαῖα καὶ τὰ θαλάσσια καὶ τὰ πετεινά, αὖτις ἐς 
ἀνθρώπου σῶμα γινόμενον ἐσδύνει " τὴν περιήλυσιν δὲ αὐτῇ γίνεσθαι ἐν τρισχι- 
λίοισι ἔτεσι. τούτῳ τῷ λόγῳ εἰσὶ οἱ Ἑλλήνων ἐχρήσαντο, οἱ μὲν πρότερον ot δὲ 
ὕστερον, ὡς ἰδίῳ ἑωυτῶν ἐόντι - τῶν ἐγὼ εἰδὼς τὰ οὐνόματα οὐ γράφω. 

“Early writers” referred to are Pythagoras, the student, and Phere- 
eydes, of the island of Syros, his teacher, to whom Cicero attributes 
the first teaching of immortality.. The later teachers, according to 
the usual interpretation, include Empedocles. 

If Herodotus received the tradition of the connection of the myth- 
ical Salmoxis with a real man, a pupil of Pythagoras in Samos, 
he is unwilling to show plainly that it is from a Samian source. 
Whether the sequel comes from Samians in the island-or in Perin- 
thus may not be determined, but the historian seems to avoid even 
the appearance of having used a Samian source, and disagrees with 
the sequel besides, preferring to give Pythagoras second place chro- 
nologically and similar place as a transmigrator of souls, if the 
reference in Bk. II, 123, is indication of his true feeling. In Bk. 
IV perhaps he prefers to disguise his source, being Samian, and one 
which launches a tradition about which he is contemptuous. 

The fact that Cherilus, a Samian poet, on the authority of Dioge- 
nes Laertius, referred to Thales as the first to teach that the soul is 
immortal, indicates a tendency in Greek tradition to credit some 
Greek with this theory. At any rate the Samian colony on the 
Hellespont is a possible source for this tale. 


(4.) Miltiades at the Bridge. 


The annals of the Philaid family, tending to emphasize the 
patriotism or prowess of Miltiades, give clue to the Athenian source 
for most of chapter 137 of Bk. IV, but Samian records as well must 
be responsible for part of the narrative. It is the famous episode 
of the Ionians being urged by the Scythians to destroy the bridge 
of Darius before he returned from his expedition and gain their free- 
dom from Persian tyranny. In the deliberations of the Ionians Mil- 
tiades, an Athenian, urged that they follow the suggestions of the 
Seythians and free Ionia; but Histieus, the Milesian, opposed this 


34 HE. E. Cole, 


porary of Polyerates, of Samos, shows relations between these 
rulers. 

Arkesilaos became restive under the decisions of Demonax, a Manti- 
nean, who had been made mediator in accordance with the advice 
of the Delphic oracle. Some of the special privileges formerly 
enjoyed by the kings were turned over to the people and Cyrene 
became subject to a division into three tribes. Arkesilaos demanded 
the prerogatives of his ancestors, but in his revolutionary movements 
was worsted and fled to Samos, while his mother, Pheretime, went 
to Salamis, endeavoring to raise a force to help restore the old 
order of things at Cyrene. Arkesilaos at Samos levied forces with 
a view to redistribution of land, pushed a campaign against re 
and was successful. | 

Traces of the expedition of Polycrates are on coins of Cyrene. 
Perey Gardner, citing Mueller (Num. de l’anc. Afrique) thinks that 
there is no mistake in finding an allusion to this expedition in 
coins which bear on the one side silphium of Cyrene and the lion’s 
head of Samos, and on the other, the eagle’s head of Ialysus. The 
fact, too, that the Samian standard of weight, rarely in use else- 
where, was adopted by Cyrene and Barea, is brought as witness of 
close connection. | 

No conclusion may be reached as to how much of the history 
of Cyrene may have been transmitted by Arkesilaos to Samos, but 
it is probable that portions of it may have been received from 
entirely Samian sources. Perhaps Samian elements entered into 
parts of the “Libyan λόγος" which were too elusive for detection. 


(7.) Samian Source for Pawonian Episodes. 


In the history of the gradual advance of the Persian power are 
included the conquests of Darius’ lieutenants in Europe, Megabazos 
and Otanes. Bk. V, 1 cites Perinthus as one of the first conquests 
of Megabazos. 

Perinthus was a Samian colony stablnhed about 599 B. C. and 
rated the most prominent Hellenic city on the north coast of the 
Propontis, but it is given scarcely any place in Herodotus’ narra- 
tive and appears to be mentioned rather because of the connection 
of Perinthians with Peonians, whose relations had not always been 
very friendly. Looked at from Herodotus’ viewpoint the greatest 
fact in the history of Perinthus seems to be its feud with Pseonia, 
which assumes some importance in the story but is dropped to make 


The Samos of Herodotus. 35 


room for a description of Thrace and its “customs.” Peonian 
features frequently invade the story of Book V, doubtless because of 
this Perinthian and Peonian relation, and prevail perhaps on the 
authority of the Perinthians, who, being of Samian origin, may help 
to shape the trend of the work here. 

A Peonian feature which may owe its existence to the influ- 
ence of the Perinthians is the story in Bk. V, 12, of the Ponian 
girl who attracted the attention of Darius and thus won favor for 
her brothers by posing as a model of industry, carrying a jar of 
_ water on her head, leading a horse and spinning thread with one 
hand while walking home. 

One queries whether this local ἐξόχως applied to Darius, may not 
have been induced through Perinthian (Samian) sources which were 
willing to cast a shade of ridicule upon the Peonians. 


(8.) Otanes’ Conquests. 


Samian source for the history of Otanes’ conquests preceding the 
Tonian Revolt is revealed in chapter 27 of Bk. V. -Otanes had been 
put in command of forces along the sea when Darius went to Susa, 
leaving Sardis in charge of Artaphernes. The weird story of the 
flaying of Sisamnes, the father of Otanes, and consequent succession 
of Otanes to command, wherein he seized Byzantium, Antandros, 
Lemnos, Imbros, etc., is concluded by the paragraph: 

οἱ μὲν δὴ Λήμνιοι καὶ ἐμαχέσαντο εὖ Kal ἀμυνόμενοι ἀνὰ χρόνον ἐκακώθησαν, 
τοῖσι δὲ περιεοῦσι αὐτῶν οἱ Πέρσαι ὕπαρχον ἐπιστᾶσι Λυκάρητον τὸν Μαιανδ- 
ρίου τοῦ βασιλεύσαντος Σάμου ἀδελφεόν. 

The use οἵ βασιλεύσαντος raises the query whether this seems more 
satisfactory to Herodotus than the epithet of τύραννος for Meandrius, 
and whether it denotes influence from a Samian faction. 


(9.) Pythios and the Plane-tree. 


The episode of Pythios, the Lydian, ‘and Xerxes, related in Bk. 
VII, 27, receives color from a Samian source, but not revealed in 
Herodotus’ text itself. When Xerxes.and his army had advanced 
from the Halys river into Phrygia and Celene, Pythios, son of Atys, 
entertained Xerxes and his army with expensive banquets and even 
showed his willingness to advance funds for the war. Xerxes asked 
the Persians who the man was and what wealth he possessed. In 
their reply Herodotus makes them say: “This is he who gave your 
father Darius the golden plane-tree and grape-vine.” 


36 H. E. Cole, 


The “plane-tree and grape-vine” appear to have been joined 
together, the grapevine having clusters made from smaragdus, and 
to have been famous among royal treasures for magnificence and 
quality of workmanship for several centuries, to the time of Antigo- 
nas, 316 B. C. (Diodorus, XIX, 47-48), in whose possession it was 
last heard of. Photius (Biblioth. 612 H.) refers to it as the work 
of the Samian, Theodorus, and it is supposed by some to have been 
among the treasures of Creesus. | 

Thus the fact of the Samian Theodorus being the designer accounts 
for its insertion here, while the story shows that the gifts were 
too well known to Xerxes to need description; and that Pythios had 
given these things to Darius was calculated to serve as a very effec- 
tive letter of introduction, a playing the host at expensive banquets 
does not suffice. 

(10.) Salamis. 


How much of the story of the Ionian Revolt, battle of Salamis 
and Mycale may have been derived from Samian source cannot be 
determined, but it may not be far-fetched to suppose that a great 
deal more than is usually supposed came from Samos. 

In the case of Bk. VIII, chapter 85, the reference to Samos is 
wedged in between a description of the forces before Salamis, the 
respective positions of Persians and Greeks, and the losses sustained 
by the Persians as well as their valor, compared with other exploits. 

The paragraph explains itself, although its location seems forced: 

ἔχω μέν νυν συχνῶν οὐνόματα τριηράρχων καταλέξαι τῶν νέας Ἑλληνίδας ἑλόν- 
των, χρήσομαι δὲ αὐτοῖσι οὐδὲν πλὴν Θεομήστορός τε τοῦ ᾿Ανδροδάμαντος καὶ 
Φυλάκου τοῦ Ἱστιαίου, Σαμίων ἀμφοτέρων. τοῦδε δὲ εἵνεκα μέμνημαι τούτων 
μούνων, ὅτι Θεομήστωρ μὲν διὰ τοῦτο τὸ ἔργον Σάμου ἐτυράννευσε καταστη- 
σάντων τῶν Περσέων, Φύλακος δὲ εὐεργέτης βασιλέος ἀναγράφη καὶ χώρῃ 
ἐδωρήθη πολλῇ. 
It is hardly necessary to emphasize Samian elements here, even 
if the author states that his motive was the fact that one trierarch 
was made tyrant while the other received public honor—perhaps 
recorded at Samos. 

In general the passages classed as “Latent Samian Influences” 
indicate that Herodotus was extraordinarily well acquainted with 
various features of Samian history or “folk-lore” and that he was 
thoroughly saturated with the Samian point of view, his entire 
treatment of Samian affairs being Sorter from a source, as it 
were, native to him. 


ConcLusION. 


Herodotus’ Egyptian Book wm Relation to his Treatment of Samos. 


It is known that Herodotus made a short visit in Egypt, probably 
induced by the feeling that there—where Grecian colonial inter- 
ests were increasing and the Athenians had recently supported Ina- 
rus in the campaign of 459-4—was a rich field for the antiquary 
and one of special interest at that time to the Greeks. 

A comparison of Herodotus’ method of describing Egyptian monu- 
ments and relating Egyptian history (Bk. II), “the result of a 
leisurely visit but not of actual residence,” with his treatment of 
Samian monuments and history may strengthen the view that Hero- 
dotus was once a resident of Samos and was peculiarly influenced by 
Samian affairs. 

It is interesting to note (1) that Herodotus’ treatment of Egyptian 
monuments differs from his discussion of Samian monuments. His 
description and statistics of the pyramid erected by Cheops (chap- 
ters 124-5-6) are much more extended than any of his remarks about 
Samian monuments. Chapters 130-1-2 are devoted to details about 
a certain image designed as a tomb and erected by Mycerinus. Facts 
concerning temples form several paragraphs of chapter 138. Chap- 
ter 148 reveals a great amount of detail given to the great labyrinth, 
accounted one of the wonders of the world. Monuments which are 
unique are given considerable space in 155-6. Facts about the canal, 
built in the reign of Necho, fill chapter 158 entire. Any one of these 
attractions to the traveler has received far more attention from 
Herodotus than the three great wonders of Samos; for a terse para- 
graph upon the great Samian aqueduct is all that the historian 
offers, while the mole in the harbor and Samian temple to Hera 
are given much less space than this. ~ 

Since Herodotus claimed in Book III, 60, that the three Samian 
monuments were “the greatest works of Hellenic genius”. the only 
inference from the array of details about Egyptian monuments is that 
they were novel and striking to his traveler’s eyes, while those of 
Samos were such an “old story” that details concerning them seemed 
superfluous—a very good indication of extended residence in Samos. 


38 H. EH. Cole, 


(2) It must be noted also that Herodotus’ treatment of his so- 
called history of Egypt from Menes to Amasis shows little similarity 
to his treatment of Samian history. The Egyptian material is 
treated like that in the Seythian, Lydian or any other “logos” of 
Herodotus. Aside from the names and length of reign of the kings 
very little history seems to be found, while some striking or fantas- 
tic tale connected with the kings receives considerable space. In 
short, legends or topics of mythical nature seem particularly attrac- 
tive to Herodotus for his Egyptian book. 

There is no indication of intimate knowledge of real matters 
of Egyptian history (such as in his treatment of the factional ele- 
ments in Samian affairs), though it is true that in his narrative of 
the later Egyptian kings who lived a little before the time of 
Herodotus there is more appearance of dealing with facts, but cer- 
tainly no such spontaneity of method or tone of familiarity with the 
under-currents of events as in the Samian material. In fact almost 
every chapter of Egyptian “history” betrays the expression: “I 
learned from hearsay”; “I heard” or “I was told by the priests 
of the temple,” indicating rather clearly that Herodotus dare not 
assume to be authority for his statements. On the other hand, the 
general current of Samian affairs is given by one statement of fact 
after another without citation of source and with an air of confi- 
dence and certainty; not the method of a casual visitor to Samos. 

These considerations may be merged with the statement that 
Samos often is an object of comparison in Herodotus’ treatment 
of miscellaneous subjects, indicating a constant and unconscious 
influence of Samian things upon the historian’s mind. This is a 
spontaneity which would be hard to find in the literary character of 
the book on Egypt. This book is quite systematic, about one half 
being devoted to the “Land and People,” including notes on bounda- 
ries, the overflowing of the Nile and causes, sources of the Nile, 
different Egyptian customs, beasts for sacrifice, sacred festivals, an 
excursus on the Egyptian theory of the origin of the Greek gods — 
and oracles, burial of the dead, animals native to the country, peeuli- 
arities of the people, ete., etc.,—(statistics which would have appealed 
to Alexander the Great in his conquest of the world) all arranged 
with a fair degree of symmetry; but all of it appears to be some- 
what formal and done with set purpose, just as a modern journalist 
in an alien country might prepare a certain amount of material 
on defined topics. In the first half of the book occasionally appear 


wa 


ar 
; 


a8 ep eR Ral ΤΎΡΟΥ 


Ὁ 


The Samos of Herotlotys:, 2..2°° +s 


«ee 
s 
e® 
ψεδὸ 


the familiar words: ἐς λόγους δὲ ἐλθὼν τοῖσι ἱρεῦσι τοῦ θεοῦ εἰρόμην---οἴο. 


(chapter 44); ταῦτα μέν νυν τῶν ἐν Θήβῃσι ἱρέων jxovov,—(chapter 55). 

In chapter 99 Herodotus states that his narrative up to the sec- 
ond half springs from his own observation, judgment and inquiry 
or investigation, ioropin, but the second half will be “a story of Egypt 


according to what he has heard,” i. e., what he has received for the 


most part from records or priests in the temples. While Samos was 
to him a natural theme for historical narrative, Egypt apparently 
was not, the second half of the book also appearing formal, with its 
list of kings, but with no themes which are spontaneously and almost 
unconsciously developed, as is much of tlie Samian material scattered 
through the nine books, with no attempt at a “Samian logos.” 


Erma Exoise Cote. 


>" 

oe as 
brs} 

Φ onesie Ὁ 


Οσοῦσο 


Se is 


ae: 
ἘΠ᾿ Ξῇ 


yer 


x 
FRR ς Ὁ 
ere ΝᾺ 


ΩΝ ΕΙΣ 
nee Ν Sa ns a 


» 
a; 1 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFOR 
BERKELEY 


Return to desk from which borrowed, 
book is DUE on the last date stamped below, 


NIA LIBRARY 


REGHR py P 

MAR 21 1962 
DEC6 1985 6 
REC'D LI 
DEC 6-'65-1 PM 


Due end of WINTER 


vart 
REGS μὰ 


LD 21-100m-9,’4g (B399s16) 476 


ne 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 


ns 
‘ee 


be 


τ Pane πο 
ἢ" wef 


KASS 
᾿ - 


cane 
Ἶ 
Ye ἃ i 
Aa Pia, SA ure 


